Predicting what will pass in the legislature can have the same success rate as predicting the weather. There are several bills that are receiving lots of ink that are very hard to predict as successful. There has been much discussion about the statewide smoking ban (House Bill 1018). This bill would ban smoking in all public places except casinos, racinos, bars, fraternal clubs and nursing homes. Some would ask, "How is this a smoking ban?" With all the exceptions, the smoking ban is far less than a ban. In my opinion, it is more of an "excuse me" policy. I have always thought that a businessman should have the freedom to limit smoking if he desires. It doesn't take long for the public to make a statement to the business about the acceptance of smoking in the business. If the public objects, they will not patronize the establishment. My whole point here is that a law passed to prohibit "something" or "anything" should be all-encompassing. To allow the exceptions and exclusions simply dilutes the law's effectiveness. It becomes a toothless tiger-a law that is unenforceable and weak. Some would say that no legislation is better than weak legislation. Another major issue before us is the unemployment insurance bill (House Bill 1450). The bill addresses our serious problem with the unemployment insurance fund account and the indebtedness incurred with the federal government. Indiana has borrowed $2 billion to pay our UI claims and as a state, we have to begin a repayment plan. The bill before us reconfigures the calculations on both the employer and employee in order to implement a program that solves the problem, is fair to both sides and repays the $2 billion debt to the feds. Most of our Democrat colleagues do not care for the bill, but it does address many of the problem areas of UI and offers a balanced solution. It does not please all parties; perhaps it offends all parties. That might make it good legislation. During our Children's Moment at church Sunday, our five-year-old granddaughter was asked whether she might use a wheel chair or crutches or a cane. She shouted out, "Why would I?" Her response was that of a healthy, active, energetic and precocious five-year-old. She didn't need any of that stuff that old people use. The point of the Children's Moment was that everyone needs some help sometimes. Young or old, a crutch, cane or wheel chair can be a needed assistance. Whether physical or spiritual, some appliance may prove helpful and necessary. Throughout the legislative process, assistance is always required. It can be supportive, physical, spiritual or even unintended. Making or changing law is not easy, nor should it be. The end result should be positive and should answer the question, "Why would I?" The answer is "It is the right thing to do." Stay in touch. More later, Bill Friend
-30- |
